• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Climate Change & Natural Disasters Thread

awaken said:
Nuclear is the cleanest, most reliable form of energy. New Gen IV reactors can use previous nuclear waste as fuel and can be fitted in current nuclear sites.

France went nuclear decades ago while Germany went renewable. The difference in the favor of France is night and day.
Click to expand...

So the fixation on nuclear is because of the reliability? Like "what happens to wind power when the wind isn't blowing" kind or reliability?
 
birdman said:
So the fixation on nuclear is because of the reliability? Like "what happens to wind power when the wind isn't blowing" kind or reliability?
Click to expand...

good point. this one has legs. if only we had some sort of device or holder... something we could push energy into and save it for another time. we could call it an energy box. maybe a powertube!
 
birdman said:
So the fixation on nuclear is because of the reliability? Like "what happens to wind power when the wind isn't blowing" kind or reliability?
Click to expand...

Yeah, when it's cloudy for a week in the winter, or night time, or the wind doesn't blow

Solar and wind need back-up plans - fossil fuels, batteries (whose creation and disposal is polluting and not green).
Nuclear does not. It checks more boxes of what is needed. To insist on lesser solutions is the fixation, not nuclear.
 
Can you tell me more about nuclear green disposal?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Advantages and disadvantages
- Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:
- Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia
- 100–300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel
- Broader range of fuels, and even unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).
- In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.
- Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.
 
I’m not even against nuclear, just don’t see how you can make a sober argument that it is safer and cleaner than solar.
 
awaken said:
This just came on my TikTok feed so it's not vetted but sounds reasonable

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdYcrhEs/
Click to expand...

How do more nuclear power plants solve the problem of needing batteries for electric cars, iPhones, laptops, etc.? Also, solar panels can be recycled, just nuclear waste apparently, but it is expensive and requires funding/support. I can’t find any corroboration that they cause cancer, but you know what does cause cancer? nuclear waste.

I am not say any electric production method comes without cost and clean-up but, some are cleaner than others.
 
Per Fortune:

Currently, a single Ethereum transaction consumes as much electricity as an average U.S. household uses in a workweek—and has a carbon footprint equivalent to 140,893 Visa credit card transactions or 10,595 hours of watching YouTube.
Click to expand...
 
birdman said:
How do more nuclear power plants solve the problem of needing batteries for electric cars, iPhones, laptops, etc.? Also, solar panels can be recycled, just nuclear waste apparently, but it is expensive and requires funding/support. I can’t find any corroboration that they cause cancer, but you know what does cause cancer? nuclear waste.

I am not say any electric production method comes without cost and clean-up but, some are cleaner than others.
Click to expand...

No one said nuclear solves the problem for needing any batteries, but we won't need batteries for homes since they can be powered without interruption with nuclear. Batteries back up solar power. Big ones. For long term outages, solar and wind need to be backed up by something else - right now fossil fuels. And we see from the North Sea situation that it is difficult to get back into the supply chain for fossil fuels once you leave.

I understand your concern with nuclear waste. Isn't it appealing to use new nuclear technology that uses current nuclear waste as fuel, gives 100-300x energy as old nuclear, then its waste is radioactive ~1/10th as long as it was. The reduction in nuclear waste years is a huge plus.
 
birdman said:
I’m not even against nuclear, just don’t see how you can make a sober argument that it is safer and cleaner than solar.
Click to expand...

Because solar is insufficient, and you'll need a supplemental source. "solar" = solar + coal or whatever.
 
Ok, cool, let’s go with nuclear. Get it up and running in the next 10 years. Carbon neutral by 2035. I’m on board.
 
birdman said:
Ok, cool, let’s go with nuclear. Get it up and running in the next 10 years. Carbon neutral by 2035. I’m on board.
Click to expand...

Send the waste to SC. They don’t know any better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top